va kemijen semarang univ of hawaii min

University of Hawaii at Manoa

PracticUM

rePort

Department of Urban & regional Planning

_{FaLL 2016}

VULNERABILITY

ASSESSMENT

KeMiJeN, SeMaraNG

iNDoNeSia

DiScLaiMer: The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily relect the views of the University of Hawai‘i or the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) or the United States Government.

iMaGeS: Unless otherwise indicated, all images, photos, and diagrams were produced by UH/UNDIP students (2016)

cUrreNcY: The November 2016 conversion rate used by the project team for IDR to USD was averaged to IDR 13,500 = 1 USD

rePort SUbMiSSioN:

Fall/2016 Practicum – PLaN 751

Submitted to Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii at Manoa in partial completion of the Masters in Urban and Regional Planning.

iNStrUctorS:

Dr. Dolores Foley (UHM), Dr. Wiwandari Handayani (UNDIP) and Micah Fisher (UHM)

StUDeNtS:

Ranjeeta Acharya, Rasmi Agrahari, Maitry Biswas, Theresa Dean, Sarah Eggert, Emily Kukulies, Jessica Okamura, Maja Pilgaard Schjervheim, and Matthew Pine.

acKNowLeDGeMeNtS:

A special thank you to the Semarang City Resilience Oice, Kemijen residents and community leadership, government oicials, nonproit organizations, and faith- based organizations that articulated the vulnerabilities, challenges, opportunities, and milestones of planning and adapting to lood, subsidence and climate change.

Supported by USAID Grant: AID-OFDA-G-13-00048 (2013-2017)

Diponegoro University Studio Student Partners

Aditio Setionurjaya Deny Aditya Puspasari Diana Kristina S

Maria Ekacarini Jayanimitta Tresnasari Ratnaningtyas

Government agencies

Disaster Management Board of Semarang City Environmental Agency of Semarang

Health Agency of Semarang Polder Banger Management Board

Semarang City Planning and Development Board Water Management Agency

resilience oice of Semarang city

Purnomo Dwi Sasongko Luthi Eko Nugroho Wiwandari Handayani Mega Anggraeni Nonproit organizations Bintari Foundation Grobak Hysteria PATTIRO Semarang Perdikan

Mercy Corps Indonesia

Kemijen community Leadership

RW and RT’s of Kemijen Bapak and Ibu Lurah of Kemijen Pembinaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga Local military and police representatives

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Dr. Kem Lowry Dr. Keith Bettinger Hendri Yuzal

executive Summary 1

i. introduction 3

ii. Kemijen background 3

iii. Vulnerability assessment Methodology 5

iV. Settlement 9

V. Land Subsidence 14

Vi. Flooding and the Polder System 18

Vii. Sanitation, waste Management & water Supply 25

Viii. Potential action Steps 32

references 36

Figures 40

appendix a - Study Stakeholders 41

appendix b - Household Survey 42

appendix c -relocation case Studies 44

appendix D - integrated approach/best Practices 45

appendix e - Flood Management/best Practices 46

eXecUtiVe SUMMarY

In 2016 the University of Hawaii (UH) partnered with Diponegoro University (UNDIP) in a joint studio/practicum project to work on an urban resilience project in collaboration with the Resilience Oice of the City of Semarang, Indonesia. The Resilience Oice had two core objectives for the studio/practicum. First, they hoped the practicum could help develop an approach to conducting vulnerability assessments to build resilience in key target sectors in Semarang. Second, the Resilience Oice also identiied geographical priority areas. In particular, they hoped that focusing the work on Kemijen (a kelurahan, or urban village administrative unit) could present a strategic opportunity for piloting a vulnerability assessment and action plan on looding and lood-related issues.

Kemijen is a unique community when it comes to building resilience. The area has experienced looding for over 20 years, which is compounded by dramatic land subsidence that continues to undermine many development projects supporting the community. However, Kemijen has also made signiicant institutional and programmatic interventions that provide the foundation for building a framework for resilience going forward. The vulnerability assessment focuses on Kemijen as a test case for developing a vulnerability framework approach, while also looking for opportunities to implement action plans that tackle key resilient-building eforts for the community.

The UH and UNDIP joint studio/practicum (the project team) began by reviewing all documentation for the region and developing a comprehensive review of resilience frameworks. In addition, the project team met remotely with subject matter experts that ranged from sectoral expertise to administrative staf from the City of Semarang. These discussions helped guide research and provide perspectives on the complex inter-related aspects regarding resilience in the area. The project team identiied key exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity indicators to map the scope of work for the assessment. A series of household surveys, government interview questions, NGO interview questions and community focus group activities were designed to guide data collection and approach analysis.

With support from USAID, the project team was able to travel to Kemijen, Semarang and conduct the study. The project team completed a series of stakeholder engagement activities and ield research to identify vulnerabilities in Kemijen. Although the initial vulnerability assessment highlighted looding as the core problem, data indicated a complex interaction of four key elements that all require due consideration in order to efectively move towards building resilience. These include, understanding Kemijen in terms of: i) the dynamics of the community as a settlement area, ii) land subsidence, iii) looding and polder management; and iv) solid waste, wastewater, and water supply. These four areas shaped the core analytical components of this report. Striving for resilience demands an integrated approach and the project team views these sectoral components as profoundly connected. In turn, multi-sector collaboration is required due to the complexity of the issues and the inter-relatedness of their impacts. An integrated approach bridges structural and non-structural interventions and adopts the best practices of the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilience Cities initiative. The Resilience Oice is well positioned to facilitate and lead the initiative to build urban resilience by convening multiple stakeholder groups. As such, this report responds to the call to develop vulnerability assessments to build urban resilience.

With the drastic rates of subsidence, some relocation is inevitable. In the event that resettlement takes place, approaches to relocating people should be conducted in ways that prioritize the most vulnerable and also adequately ensure the commensurate support for those afected. Although much of Kemijen is zoned for settlements – and in some neighborhood units informal settlements are actually increasing – land subsidence continues to present a constant strain at multiple scales. For example, local households invest costly amounts in raising their foundations on average every ive years, and government funds are regularly responding to the need to raise roads/pathways and maintain drainage infrastructure. Those households that cannot invest in raising their foundations or that the government cannot fully serve are relegated to living with constant inundations and costly pumping requirements.

This report shares a vulnerability assessment geared towards approaching resilience in strategic phases. The overall approach supports the principle of irst ensuring livability and improving quality of life, while making strategic investments for longer term sustainability considerations. The second phase prioritizes a precedent-setting approach by ensuring just practices for relocating strategic areas in Kemijen by focusing on the most vulnerable located in areas that support the most critical infrastructure. By approaching resettlement in these ways, afected communities and potential relocation areas will gain trust in the process and believe that moving can be an attractive option.

Urban resilience is a relatively new concept and the project team was encouraged by the Resilience Oice’s commitment to trial innovative approaches. In Indonesia, Semarang has the most progressive and innovative institutional outit to plan for resilience. Implementation will serve as a guide to other cities across Indonesia. Vulnerability assessments provide for careful ways to gauge resilience and develop action plans. By beginning to set precedence in Kemijen, the Resilience Oice of Semarang can continue to initiate and implement timely urban resilience eforts, while also inding new approaches to address key vulnerabilities for its residents. Resilience is premised on the dedication and commitment from the many sectors of government, the partnership fostered with communities, coordination among civil society groups, and cooperation with the private sector. Cities are made of people, and Kemijen can build resilience through the collaboration of individuals in a set of common principles that meet its complex challenges.

i. introduction

The University of Hawaii (UH) received funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID/OFDA) which allowed collaboration with Diponegoro University (UNDIP) to conduct a joint vulnerability assessment in Kemijen. In 2016, UH and UNDIP partnered as a part of a joint studio/practicum course titled Urban Resilience: Flood Management in Semarang. The aim of the joint studio/practicum was to conduct a vulnerability assessment and develop an action plan to address looding and related issues in a strategic area in Semarang. The location is an urban village administrative unit (kelurahan) called Kemijen. Figure 1 below is the joint studio/practicum members (henceforth, the project team).

Figure 1: Joint Practicum opening in Semarang

Kemijen, like other kelurahan located in densely populated urban agglomerations along the north coast of Java, face risks from a multitude of urban development challenges, which are also made more complex through climate change. Kemijen is also strategically located near the main railway lines and beneits from proximity to industrial employment areas. In addition, the City Government of Semarang (henceforth, Kota Semarang) have also implemented key interventions on lood management, most notably the Banger river polder system. The complex urban vulnerabilities combined with the strategic location and the catalyzing efect of existing lood management interventions is the reason Kota Semarang’s Resilience Oice requested that the project team focus eforts in Kemijen. There is a sense that if the Resilience Oice can get things right in Kemijen, the challenges for other neighboring kelurahan will become easier.

ii. Kemijen background

Indonesia is a country consisting of diverse islands and cities. In recent years, Indonesia has experienced an increase in the frequency of severe climate-related hazards with loods and windstorms, droughts, landslides, forest ires, heat waves, storms and others climatic events (ISET, 2010). With a population of approximately 1,584,068 people, Semarang is one of the larger cities in Indonesia and serves as the Capital of Central Java province. In 2016, Kota Semarang (not to be confused with the neighboring District of Semarang) was included in the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities initiative. Through 100 Resilient Cities, Kota Semarang crafted a guiding framework for a Resilient Semarang in 2016, which included a roadmap of strategies to address climate change. Kemijen plays an important role for meeting key objectives of the framework.

Kemijen Geography

Kemijen is located in the northern region of Kota Semarang, with a total area of 140.9 hectares. Approximately 11% (15.86 hectares) of the kelurahan are characterized as a slum area. It is a vibrant community, with common social structures such as mosques, churches, schools, health centers and other places for community gatherings. Kemijen is intersected by two rivers, the Banger River and the East Flood Canal. Other unique features are the railroad tracks which run along hamlet (rukun warga, henceforth RW) V and RW VI, and the international port adjacent to the kelurahan, on the Northwestern side. The coastal community is also located near the harbor and other industrial business districts. The kelurahan is divided into 11 RWs (see Figure 2, below).

FiGUre 2 Map of Kemijen by rw

Source: Kota Semarang for administrative boundaries; Google Maps for base maps

Kemijen History and Demography

Although there is little information available about the area before the late 19th century, Kemijen was originally a marsh when people irst began settling there. In the late 1800s the Kemijen area changed with the introduction of the key railroad lands that would begin to connect key areas across Java. This in turn provided employment opportunities and came to be settled by thousands of people. The 1990s also saw an increased expansion of industrialization, providing employment opportunities that led to people moving to the area. The 1997 Asian inancial crisis also had a demographic efect has people began to lock here to ind work in urban centers. Kemijen became a place of low cost housing options in proximity to various employment opportunities. Unplanned growth in this way also increased vulnerabilities, especially in regards to looding.

According to government statistics collected at the kelurahan level (2014), 13,410 people live in Kemijen. This consists of 3,969 families, with 6,709 males and 6,701 females. The population density is 9,493 inhabitants per square kilometer (Mulyana et. al, 2013). In 2010, approximately 82% of residents did not have a high school education and the student absentee rate was around 20%, however this number tends to rise in poorer areas (Taylor, 2010). Most people ind work through the strategic proximity to the neighboring industrial centers, the nearby local market, and as ishermen. The project team also identiied various informal shops that sold snacks and small household goods providing for additional household income throughout this vibrant community. Other common informal jobs include collecting waste from households or selling ish caught in the retention pond.

iii. Vulnerability assessment Methodology

overview

The initial focus of this vulnerability assessment is on looding challenges. Floods are the most visible risks to the community, afecting infrastructure, and other key features of the area like the canal and recently built polder system. In order to better

there are several small informal and formal businesses in Kemijen. along the boundaries of Kemijen are main roads that support an assortment of businesses which service the nearby industrial clients, such as auto and tire repair shops. other boundary businesses support the many workers who use the transportation corridor such as convenience stores, lunch stops and snack shops.

within the small narrow streets of the eleven rw are also businesses that serve the neighborhood’s internal and external clients. these sources of income are assests for the economic health of the community but are also vulnerable to the hazards discussed in this assessment. the woman shown (upper right) sells snacks and beverages at the pump house each evening. She caters to the men and boys who come to the water’s edge to race birds. this business operates daily and provides enough income to support her small household.

the group of people shown (lower right) are peeling garlic for resale. their work areas are within 15 meters of the canal, an area vulnerable to

Figure 3: Vulnerability Assessment Conceptual Framework

Drivers and Antecedents

Through meetings with stakeholders and subject matter experts, the project team identiied key drivers for adapting and building resilience in Kemijen. As a small residential community, the primary driver has been to enhance the local capacity to address looding. However, due to the socio-economic conditions improving collaboration with government, non-governmental organizations and international organizations are secondary drivers to developing actionable steps. There are various government agencies that have prioritized addressing loods and lood related issues. Due to increased awareness, infrastructure, programs and partnerships that have taken place in Kemijen, the community has reduced lood impacts in recent years. However, looding is a complex issue. Floods continue to occur in Kemijen and are made worse by the uncertainty of climate change. Various studies and plans have identiied the causes of looding and other challenges like land subsidence, land use and settlement. Despite these resilience milestones, challenges remain.

Vulnerability Assessment

There have been many publications that express the aims and milestones of lood adaptation. The major indings provided guidance into the diferent exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity vulnerability indicators to consider when conducting a vulnerability assessment. The project team identiied an extensive amount of indicators and questions. Select vulnerability indicators were prioritized and informed stakeholder engagement.

USAID (2014) deines a [climate] vulnerability assessment as an analysis of the extent to which human and ecological systems are likely to be afected by climate variability and change. Vulnerability is categorized into three components: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. These aspects of vulnerabilities not only identify the current and potential impacts or threats from looding, but the ability to cope with events. The project team designed the assessment to focus on both social and physical vulnerabilities by engaging stakeholders who may not typically be involved in planning. By engaging with a diverse group of stakeholders, the project team was able to complete an assessment to serve as a guide and tool for understanding the resources, awareness, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the community. The project team learned that lood events impact residents in several ways. Not only are communities directly exposed to loods – and thus its dangers to human health and afects

to property and personal possessions – but also secondary factors inluencing sensitivity. Floods increase illnesses such as diarrhea, fever, dengue, or skin rash as people interact with unsanitary conditions. Floods also restrict movement around the city, whereby some must forgo work or school (Marfai et al, 2008). Repeated tidal looding from the sea and its salinity in particular, also results in corrosive long term impacts on infrastructure. The depth of input provided to the project team from various stakeholders (see Appendix A), combined with ieldwork activities described below, provided for broad insight into the opportunities, limitations and challenges of resilience planning in Kemijen.

Transect Walk

In October 2016, the project team conducted ield level activities in Semarang to collect the core data of the vulnerability assessment. A series of transect walks helped to better understand context and sense of place in Kemijen. The project team was able to informally discuss some of the challenges with looding and how it impacts residents. By walking through Kemijen, the project team was able to experience life among communities exposed to looding and initial discussions helped to identify some of the most vulnerable areas (See Figures 4, below). The transect walks also helped to contextualize the approach and scope of more intensive aspects of the ieldwork.

Figure 4: Transect Walk

Government Interviews

The project team also had the opportunity to interface with high level Kota Semarang oicials at City Hall. Through a series of breakout group interviews among the key agencies of the city government, the project team collected data and learned of the approaches to addressing sectoral and planning challenges in Kemijen speciically, and Semarang overall.

Exposure

The extent to which something is subject to a climate stressor: whether it is in harm’s way. (USAID, 2014) Sensitivity

The extent to which something will be positively or negatively afected if it is exposed to a climate stressor.

(USAID, 2014) Adaptive Capacity

The ability of systems, institutions, humans, and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences. (IPCC, 2014)

Figure 5: Focus Group Discussions

Non-governmental Organization Interviews

A select group of representative NGOs working in Kemijen (and Semarang) were also interviewed. The organizations invited ranged from environmental, social, and governance issues. For example the Bintari foundation works on regional sustainability issues through conservation initiatives. Grobak Hysteria works on participatory mapping and place building initiatives. PATTIRO works on governance, speciically holding public institutions to accountability. Perdikan is working with communities in Kemijen to support the most vulnerable through economic development opportunities. Finally, Mercy Corps has helped convene a network of cities on urban resilience initiatives and has speciically supported eforts in understanding vulnerability in Kemijen.

Figure 6: Household Survey

Household Survey

A household survey (see Appendix B), was designed by the project team to collect information on ive key modules that would help to collect information towards an integrated approach for urban resilience. This includes looding, polder lood maintenance system, waste and wastewater, settlement areas, and land subsidence. The intention was to complement the literature reviews and document analysis, government interviews, and NGO discussions with household perspectives in Kemijen (see Figure 6). The household survey was completed in two parts. The household survey was piloted in RW VII, VIII and XI. Then teams consisting of UNDIP, UH students and a translator conducted surveys in the RWs that had not been previously surveyed. The remaining eight RWs were represented in the household survey. The participating households provided nuance and depth about preferences and perceptions in terms of looding, land subsidence, and what it is like to live in Kemijen.

Approximately 70% of the respondents were females as the interviews took place during the day at people’s homes. Some of the women use their homes for work and provided context on economic opportunities in the area. For instance, a woman in RW VI taught young children how to read. Her neighbor had a warung or stand to sell snacks. Respondents ranged from newcomers to long term residents. The age range of people surveyed was between 18 - 90 years old.

IV. Settlement

Overview

Natural disasters are often complex phenomenon because although natural hazards cause disasters, disasters are by no means natural. The extent to which a disaster happens is also highly contingent upon socio-economic factors. Therefore, the project team began analysis by developing an understanding about a sense of place. The team sought to explain foremost the factors that have transformed Kemijen into a settlement area. In other words, what were some of the reasons people were irst drawn to Kemijen, and what are reasons compelling residents to stay (despite constant exposure to hazards and a lack of basic services)? The responses from the household survey and engagement with other oicials helped to provide a clearer picture of the paradox of why residents prefer to stay in Kemijen despite the challenges.

The historical events that emerged as inluencing settlement in Kemijen included the development of the rail, industrialization, and the planning agency’s (Bappeda) decision to zone parts of the area as settlement until 2031. The Indonesian Railway Preservation Society (IRPS) believes the irst train station built in the city is Semarang Station in 1864, located in Kemijen, which highlights the strategic location and importance of the area (National Geographic Indonesia, 2014). Land subsidence has dramatically altered spaces in Semarang however, and has literally submerged the historical record of some of these rail structures.

Residents in Kemijen have speculated that people irst moved to the area because of the development of the rail. Others who had lived in Kemijen for decades also mentioned moving to the area because of the railroad, and even worked at the railroad company’s warehouse until it closed. Although many of the submerged tracks were abandoned the area has continued to be a strategic location for the poor and for new migrants to settle. Those who continue to make Kemijen their home had to adapt to the severe subsidence conditions, and it has become a densely populated area for those willing to trade of hazard risks to remain in the strategic location.

Where the roof once was . . . .

look for the line of colored plaster. We quickly learned on our walks through the area, that this is where the ceiling once was. This photo shows where the building was extended in height, but not covered with concrete. They had enough funds to add height, but not to plaster the wall to a inished look again.

This household is trying to beautify their area with a vertical garden in recycled water bottles. This is an attempt to make the best of the situation, but doesn’t cover up the fact that the family cannot aford to inish plastering their home, or has chosen not to improve their home in that way anymore.

“I was able to raise my house but I couldn’t inish the loors. I have wooden loors with dirt underneath, until I can aford more concrete...there is nothing else I can aford to put into this place”

RWIX Resident

A second theme inluencing settlements in Kemijen came with the wave of industrialization in the 1990s. In Indonesia, the ifth ive-year development plan Pelita V, which lasted from 1989 to 1994 focused on industrialization throughout the country (Hadi, 1997). Pelita V had the efect of increasing industrialization national GDP by 7%. Semarang experienced signiicant growth in the industrial sector in parallel, providing for a magnet for migration and development for people across the Province of Central Java (Hadi, 1997). Presently, there seems to be a growing interest to draw more foreign investors to Semarang.

Kemijen as both a settlement and industrial area was further designated when Bappeda oicially zoned it as such, to continue in the same way until 2031. Figure 7 below provides a broad explanation of zoning for Kemijen. There have been discussions among Bappeda to begin to modify zoning designations before the end of 2016. Such re-evaluations of zoning designation helped to guide household surveys by the project team in order to explore varying perspectives and options about re-zoning for resilience.

KEMIJEN IS A VIBRANT SETTLEMENT AREA

FROM THE DAY WE ARRIVED IN KEMIJEN, we observed the vibrant life in the community. Walking down the well-maintained residential side streets the homefronts had signs of pride and there was activity everywhere. We were impressed that the residents exhibited such a welcoming spirit of generosity. Residents were open with their time, stories and resources. They were gracious hosts that spoke fondly of their neighbors and with concern for the community.

Household Survey Results

Survey responses identiied four main reasons people were hesitant to move from Kemijen: strategic location, connection to place, a lack of economic means to move, and uncertainty about alternative accommodations. Many respondents recognized the proximity to places of employment – especially the port – as strategic reasons for staying in Kemijen. Respondents recognized that looding and land subsidence posed a challenge to health concerns, but livelihood considerations seem to top the list for reasons to stay. If opportunities arise for employment in other places, people indicated they would be more open to moving.

Another common reason for staying in Kemijen as opposed to moving was connection to place. Residents noted a sense of pride in living in Kemijen and recounted the vibrancy of place through association to local organizations and the numerous events held in the community. Additionally, people had moved to Kemijen decades ago, and raised their children and their children’s children in the same neighborhood. One survey participant even said, “No. We won’t move. If we have extra money, we will eat more chicken. This is where our children are from.” Many residents expressed hope in the polder system to ease looding problems that they had experienced over the years (see section VI for more on looding and polder system management).

A third reason given for not moving away from Kemijen due to recurring looding or land subsidence issues was the lack of enough money for moving costs or the

economic transition costs for starting over in a new place. In addition, many households cited the large investments they had made to adapt their homes to looding. Moving away would mean money lost investments. Leaving the security of homes that had been paid for, to non-secure public housing or rental homes was not preferable to most of the survey participants.

Furthermore, the lack of interest in moving can also be attributed to a lack of trust and uncertainty in the alternatives outside of Kemijen. The indings from the household survey in Kemijen are not unique, however, as similar studies from around Java highlight the reasons why people continue to live in hazard-prone communities. Taylor’s study (2015) from Surabaya and Surakarta for example, accurately summed up sentiments from Kemijen: “Communities will not relocate if it means they become worse of or more vulnerable” (p. 622).

Relocation Case Studies and Lessons Learned

Survey and FGD results highlight that Kemijen residents do not want their settlement zoning changed. Doing so would create uncertainty for residents that already face vulnerability. However, as land subsidence and climate change are likely to worsen lood hazards in Kemijen, a relocation program should be explored through a careful approach. Due to the lack of trust in relocation programs, such an efort should start small and focus on building trust among residents and showcasing that relocation can be a viable option. Relevant government agencies can begin developing a better understanding of various policies and planning processes concerning relocation due to natural hazards that have been tested to varying degrees of success across Indonesia. A brief examination of several relocation case studies has been included in Appendix C and is referenced here to make preliminary suggestions as a basis for exploring the appropriate policy for Semarang.

Several lessons can be learned from cases in nearby cities in Java (see Appendix C). First, looding is a major concern that has caused other cities like Solo and Surabaya to conclude that the best way to promote livability for vulnerable residents is relocation, as opposed to infrastructure investments in communities. The diference in Kemijen, however, is that there has been major investment in infrastructure such as the polder and numerous layering to raise street levels.

In Surakarta (Solo) in particular, the participation of the community in co-producing a standard compensation policy means that concerns that may not have been understood by government agencies were included in the process. Through attempting to understand the preferences and concerns of the community residents in relocating, more households began to be open to the idea of moving. By providing basic services in the new settlement as well and ensuring the viability of the relocation option, thus resulted in greater incentive to move.

One of the main similarities between Kemijen and the case studies of Solo and Surabaya is that all three communities vulnerable to looding had a mixed presence of residents with land tenure and those without land tenure. This is a very sensitive issue, as those who did not possess land tenure in both Solo and Surabaya did not receive compensation or ofers of compensation to be moved. If the city of Semarang is to develop standard relocation policies, the question of how to include residents without legal tenure and provide incentive to these households will be one of the most diicult issues. Additionally, not unlike Surabaya where there were complications about the jurisdiction and management of the settlement area by diferent government agencies, there may be similar complications in Kemijen. The railroad company owns much land (currently underwater) in Kemijen. If the railroad company’s interest in Kemijen is renewed in the future, there may be competing interests if relocation is ever enacted. Overall, although there are many case studies of relocation to learn from around Java, numerous questions remain that must be considered in developing a relocation policy that is unique to Kemijen and Semarang, namely: who is responsible for developing a relocation plan and who will take the lead in ensuring it is done adequately?

Summary of Findings on Settlements

Despite the interconnected challenges related to land subsidence, looding, and waste, Kemijen has hosted a sustained and resilient population for decades. Various discussions with community members and local oicials have revealed that residents have had a lack of choice in mobility, due to economic circumstances and the availability of employment in the areas. Furthermore,

V. Land Subsidence

Overview

In Semarang, land subsidence and the comprehensive knowledge of it is essential for several important planning and mitigation eforts (Abidin et al, 2010). Figure 8 below highlights that land subsidence is at the center of key planning eforts like lood control, groundwater extraction regulation, and design and construction of infrastructure, and others. Land subsidence in Semarang is widespread along the northern coastal areas and afects quality of life of its residents. Rob (tidal looding) is frequent and severe in Semarang and has had enormous impacts to quality of life, health and sanitation, and the economy. This is especially true in Kemijen.

Figure 8: The importance of land subsidence information

The northern part of Semarang is composed of very young alluvium soil with high compressibility (Abidin et al, 2012). These alluvial deposits in the coastal area of Semarang consist of beach, loodplain, tidal, near shore, and alluvial fan deposits coming from up river sedimentation lowing into the ocean. The shoreline of Semarang expanded relatively quickly from about 1695 to 1991. In total, the shoreline has expanded about two kilometers in this time frame (Abidin et al, 2012). Because of this rapid expansion, it can be expected that the natural compression of this soil is still occurring, which is causing the land subsidence (Cooksley et al, 2009).

Overexploitation of groundwater is also a cause of land subsidence. This leads to a rapid decline in water levels, which dries out the soil and therefore speeds the compaction causing rapid land subsidence. The increase of the population and urban growth, and therefore groundwater extraction, has accelerated this natural land compression quite substantially (Cooksley et al, 2009) (Abidin et al, 2012). Natural land subsidence, natural settling, rarely goes above one centimeter a year whereas man made land subsidence, water extraction, can be as much as ifty centimeters a year depending on location (Cooksley et al, 2009). In Semarang speciically, land subsidence has been observed at ifteen centimeters or more.

The soil makeup is very important in understanding how land subsidence works. The soil in Semarang is made up of sands, clays, and gravel (Cooksley et al, 2009). As over pumping of water occurs, the aquifers are depleted. The clay layers of the soil have a very low permeability and therefore, the aquifer cannot be recharged as fast as it is being depleted. This causes the sand layers to compress causing land subsidence. This lack of regeneration causes consolidation within the soil layers, which is irreversible. Therefore, land subsidence cannot be reversed, only stopped (Cooksley et al, 2009).

Infrastructure Design & Construction Spatial Planning Groundwater Extraction Regulation Environmental Conservation Flood Control

q

LAND

SUBSIDENCE

INFORMATION

Seawater Intrusion Control

q

q

_q

q

q

The volume of groundwater has greatly increased since the turn of the twentieth century (Cooksley et al, 2009). In 1901, water extraction was at about on half million cubic meters of water per year. In 2000, water extraction was around 53 million cubic meter of water per year. A signiicant portion of this increase happened in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1990 alone, 67 new groundwater wells were added in Semarang, mostly in the west. These wells pump 2,651 cubic meters of ground water per day. These are only the oicially registered wells in Semarang; it is believed that there are wells that are not registered and pumping water as well. Several scientiic studies have been done to monitor land subsidence in Semarang. The results are very conclusive showing that the most severe of the subsidence in Semarang occurs in the northern parts (Cooksley et al, 2009). Figure 9 shows a map of roughly 25 thousand ground motion data points, which clearly shows the northern part of Semarang is the most afected area.

Figure 9: Ground Motion Data Points Showing Land Subsidence

From the ground motion data points, a land subsidence map was created showing which areas of Semarang are experiencing the most land subsidence (see Figure 10, below). Kemijen is located precisely in the deep red section on the map, indicating that it lies in the worst land subsidence locations.

The spatial plan for Semarang for 1975 to 2000 does not include the issue of land subsidence even though the risk from both land subsidence and looding existed at the time of the plan generation (Miladan, 2016). The municipal government understands that over extraction of water is an important factor causing land subsidence. The municipality has sought to enforce sanctions on those who are illegally extracting water. However, a lack of options for water supply makes it diicult to enforce such a ban. It is also diicult to monitor water extraction and enforce such sanctions. A ield observation made in 2013 indicated that many illegal groundwater wells still existed (Miladan, 2016).

In 2008, Kota Semarang began to implement mitigation methods towards land subsidence in cooperation with several stakeholders such as the Central Java Province, the Geology Agency under the Ministry for Energy and Natural Resources and the German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (Miladan, 2016). These stakeholders worked with the municipality to conduct a vulnerability assessment of land subsidence for the coastal area of Semarang and determined that Kota Semarang is experiencing signiicant economic losses due to land subsidence (estimated at USD 59 million). Based on these estimates, the municipality and provincial governments put forth several mitigation methods to combat land subsidence. They include strict law enforcement and handling of groundwater extraction, detailed information of land subsidence risks, environmental impact statement, zoning to regulate development in land subsidence risk areas, reassessment of spatial planning to include relocation, developing building codes, and reassessing land reclamation development (Miladan, 2016).

The Central Java provincial government is the coordinator of land subsidence mitigation strategies through their Bappeda oice in partnership with the Energy and Mineral Resources Agency (Miladan, 2016). However, implementation strategies are not relected in any plans and have not reached the kelurahan level, which has the responsibility to inform residents of government plans and projects. As such, Kota Semarang has not planned on how to adapt to land subsidence in coastal areas. Furthermore, because of the two levels of government, provincial and municipal, it is diicult to get adaptation strategies of the ground. Although the provincial government is responsible for leading land subsidence eforts, they cannot interfere with the municipality’s land use plans so when the municipality adjusts plans to allow land subsidence areas to be urbanized, the provincial government cannot stop it. This broad authority, or lack thereof, across government agency coordination results in diiculties developing spatial plans for land subsidence adaptation in Semarang.

Moreover, the severity of looding by both tidal loods and riverine looding in Semarang is also increased by land subsidence (Mondeel and Budinetro, 2010). During the wet season, the Banger River experiences high water levels and sometimes overlows. Rather than being captured by the Banger river, rainwater loods the urban areas. Communities in the coastal areas like Kemijen have tried to adapt to the risk of land subsidence by raising their loor levels or elevating the building. The project team notably observed the silent competition between the government and local community in raising the level of the roads and raising the levels of the loors in homes, respectively.

Experiencing Land Subsidence in Kemijen

“I can’t go visit my family for the Lebaran holidays because I have to constantly monitor the water level in my house”.

This statement was made by a woman whose house is below street level. She is not capable of elevating her house and thus sufers from drainage runof from the heightened road in front of her house. Those who can aford it, have raised their homes, but those who cannot, face the worst inundations and are highly dependent on the costly running of water pumps. The woman in Figure 11 (next page), constantly operates a non-stop pump to regulate the water levels inside her home.

Aside from subsidence creating a dependency on maintaining water levels that enter the home, images in Figure 12 highlight another challenge. Subsidence has become so severe that people are living in homes that not only require loors to be heightened, but also ceilings to be raised. The project team encountered numerous cases in which people were living in homes with very low ceilings.

Figure 11: Land subsidence efects on housing

Summary of Subsidence Findings

Land subsidence is a hazard that will continue to occur in the foreseeable future and will severely threaten people and urban infrastructure. Stopping groundwater extraction from deep wells can help to slow the process. The coastal areas of Semarang, and speciically Kemijen, are experiencing the combined efects of land subsidence and sea level rise which will increase

VI. Flooding and the Polder System

Overview

Semarang is one of the most vulnerable places to looding in Central Java and has been for some time (Miladan, 2016). Figure 12 below, highlights the types and severity of looding in Semarang and indicates that Kemijen is one of the most afected areas. Ever since the Dutch colonial era, Semarang has been trying to solve the looding problem by developing urban drainage systems. Despite all the eforts over the years, Semarang still experiences looding on a regular basis. Flooding in Semarang is not only caused by inadequate drainage systems for water discharge due to heavy rains, but also due to localized rainfall events, riverine looding, and tidal looding. The increase of industrialization in Semarang has accelerated the urbanization of the city, which increases the water runof because of the increase of non-permeable surfaces that urbanization tends to encourage. As such, Semarang has seen an increase of seawater inundation over the last three decades (Miladan, 2016).

Figure 12: Bangor River Flood Map 1975

Since the 1980s, the increase of urbanization in Semarang has not been supported by proper infrastructure (Miladan, 2016). In addition, the coastal areas of Semarang were all but forgotten in urban development planning as the center of the city began to shift to the south. Severe land subsidence resulted in tidal looding becoming a chronic problem. Tidal looding concerns also did not enter into any of the planning documents between 1975 to 2000. The municipality has since then recognized that tidal looding is a serious issue and has incorporated it as a planning priory in their planning documents until 2030.

Urban institutions and the municipality have made eforts to solve looding issues in Semarang by establishing several plans, including the Semarang Urban Drainage Masterplan Project, large infrastructure investments like the Tawang Polder, and numerous other maintenance projects to address this issue (Miladan, 2016). These plans and projects provide important beneits to the city, however, overall have not yet been able to avoid regular looding that continues to afect the city perennially. Urban institutions remain hopeful however, and the Resilient City oice has helped to generate knowledge and develop a network of planning eforts to continue to make progress. For example, the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) was inspired early on by eforts in Semarang, and integrated structural and non-structural eforts like the Banger Polder Pilot Project, can act as catalyzing forces to address looding.

The ad hoc urban planning realities in cities across Indonesia has no doubt afected the current situation in Semarang (Miladan, 2016). The irst urban planning document for Kota Semarang was the Master Plan of 1972 to 1992. Since the 1970s therefore, Semarang expanded continuously in notable ways. Industrial and commercial activities helped to bring about settlement expansion. However, residential and commercial centers moved to the southern parts of Semarang. The north was still mainly marshlands, ishponds, the port, and later, industrial activities like factories. With this rapid expansion, the quality of settlement areas deteriorated in the North, and became dominated by informal settlements. The city government released a new master plan and identiied the northern part of Semarang as a new area for industrial development and settlement area. This contradicts the colonial Dutch master plan that envisioned the northern area to remain an area for agriculture and catchment area. This context is important for understanding lood infrastructure and lood management interventions that have taken place in the past decades. In short development

Unfortunately not everyone can aford to adapt. One resident in Kimijen stated that she has experienced looding in her home every day for as long as she can remember. “My home has had standing water inside it continuosly for 18 years”. Her home has sunken and unlike other households, she cannot aford to raise her home or ill in the loor. As a result, water loods her home on a consistent basis.

Living with Water for 18 years

of upstream areas to the South has created conditions of larger volumes at faster speeds traveling to central and coastal areas. Secondly, the development of the city has expanded beyond the existing drainage infrastructure. Thirdly, the coastal areas that experience severe land subsidence have not received the interventions to protect it from regular events.

Flood Management: The Polder System

The Banger Polder Pilot Project was established as part of a cooperative agreement in 2003 between the Indonesian government and the Netherlands. A technical agreement was signed and the Polder Management Board was created in order to oversee the design, fund management and planning, and construction of the Banger River Polder. The board created a mission and vision of, ‘dry feet for all’ with the auspicious goal of ridding the residents of Kemijen of coastal inundation and rainwater looding. The pilot polder project was designed to address all three types of looding events, known locally as banjir rob (tidal looding), banjir

Other households have adapted by pumping out water. This woman cannot aford the pump, or the power to run the pump. As a result, she just lives on islands of dry spots she has been able to create.

Infrastructure

The Banger polder is a system that functions beyond the administrative boundaries of Kemijen and takes a watershed approach to lood management. The Drainage Master Plan for Kota Semarang outlines the engineering speciications of the system. The polder system is a network of connected drainage canals connected to a series of pumps and enclosed within embankments and a dam. There are seven main components of the polder system, which are subdivided into pieces that protect Kemijen from high coastal water levels and tidal looding, and pieces that assist with the eicient drainage of riverine and looding cause by rainfall in upstream areas. A northern dike, eastern dike and dam are currently under construction to prevent coastal water inundation. A pump station, retention pond, embankments, and drainage canals are already in place to manage lood events.

The drainage canals are subdivided into a tiered system with tertiary, secondary, and primary components. The tertiary component is comprised of the system of drainage canals throughout the individual streets in Kemijen. The secondary component consists of the sewers on the main roads and the primary components are the Banger River and the East Food Canal. The tiered drainage system works to gather water throughout Kemijen and send it all to the Banger River. A large pump at the mouth of the river then shifts water from the river to the West Flood Canal, which then lows into the ocean. A retention pond is planned to hold water during periods of increased rainfall when the capacity of the polder is exceeded. The formal retention ponds have yet to be constructed and neighborhood ishponds are currently being used as a temporary solution. Embankments have been created to prevent water from coming in and out of Kemijen and the surrounding areas. This is to allow the polder to only drain the area for which it was built. This has caused problems in neighboring communities as water is now prevented from moving into Kemijen and loods their areas. The polder system does not rely solely on gravity to drain water from the area. The system is designed and constructed to incorporate both gravitation and pumping mechanisms to drain the area. Speciic improvements to the polder system include normalizing channels and increasing the amount of bridges and culverts, adding a pump station with a total pumping capacity of 13 cubic meters, and adding a large holding pond with a 20.67 hectare area. In addition to the formal system, there are community-based pumps that are funded and constructed by community members and leaders. These pumps promote drainage throughout Kemijen and push water to the river.

The land allocated for the construction of the polder system is owned by the national train company, PT Kereta Api Indonesia (PT KAI). Previously, PT KAI had negotiated the use of the land to residents who have built permanent homes in the area. To date, there are approximately 50 to 75 permanent households situated on the designated polder land. Since residents have legal standing to be in the area, negotiations between PT KAI and residents are now required to move the families before construction of the polder can continue. The demand for land is only increasing as the neighborhood continues to experience growth. Settlement patterns in designated infrastructure lands can be attributed to this increased demand for land in a limited area. Future maintenance will be a collaborative efort between the city government and the local community.

Pumping water and controlling lows are integral parts needed for the system to function properly. The pump stations and the pumps themselves are therefore the most critical component of the whole polder system. When rainwater is scarce and low rates decrease, water quality becomes even more degraded. This is due to the inability of liquid waste from households to be lushed out of the canals. During periods of low water low rates liquid waste will remain stagnant in the drainage canals. To address this issue, during the dry season water is pumped from outside of the neighborhood into Kemijen to maintain certain low rates. While water quality is a known hazard, it is not a major concern at the moment for the Polder Management Board due to budgetary constraints. Since this is a pilot project, the polder has been built for only a 10-year storm event and relies on the system of retention ponds to collect and store water during larger rain events. There have already been requests sent to the central government to upgrade the secondary channels to make drainage more eicient.

The board has created a long term maintenance plan that slowly shifts the inancial responsibility of maintenance from the government to the community over a ive-year period. The Polder Banger Management Agency currently pays for the polder. After completion of the project, and the polder is fully operational, the government will pay the full costs of system maintenance. Each additional year thereafter there will be a 25% incremental transfer of iscal responsibility to the community. By the ifth year, the plan is to have the community predominately responsible for the system costs. This places a inancial burden on a community that may not have the inancial means to contribute a signiicant portion of their income to a large infrastructure maintenance fund. The estimated fee collection for the community maintenance of the polder is as follows: residents (tiered by low, medium and high incomes), companies (tiered by medium and large), and routine municipality subsidy. Low income residents will be required to pay IDR 3,000 (USD .20); medium income residents will be required to pay IDR 4,500 (USD .30); and high income residents will be required to pay IDR 7,500 (USD .60). Medium and large companies will be required to pay a signiicantly larger portion of the fees including IDR 30,000 (USD 2.2) and IDR 60,000 (USD 4.4) respectively. A routine municipality subsidy of IDR 27,500,000 (USD 2,037.0) has been designated by the operation and maintenance cost plan.

To implement this inancial management plan, the board has tried to engage local businesses in the area, including the electric and natural gas companies in Kemijen, to contribute a larger portion of the funds. However, during the household survey some respondents were not aware of the polder project and others were shocked with the plan for the community taking on the maintenance cost. Also, stakeholder engagement with businesses is essential to ensure the long term inancing of the polder.

Impacts of the System

Kemijen experienced banjir looding on a daily basis until the Banger Polder Pilot Project closed of the area to rob inundation. Some of the residents believe that the polder has solved all of their looding problems. Others are still experience looding and are not so sure that the polder has ixed everything. It is evident that not everyone has experienced the beneits of the polder.

An FGD and a household survey also informed how looding was afecting the residents, the adaptation strategies of the residents and the government, and whether or not they were successful. According to the FGD, the polder had greatly reduced the rob situation but there are still areas that experienced looding, mainly from rainfall. Figure 15 shows a representation of the results of the FGD in which areas in blue identify areas that still experience looding. In addition to the polder system, the government has also invested in other intervention and improvement projects (see Figure 16).

Figure 15: Map of Flooding Locations in Kemijen After Polder Implementation

Figure 16: Observed Government Funded Improvement Projects

Vulnerabilities of the System

Vulnerabilities to the polder system could impact community vulnerability since the community relies, in part and possibly fully in the future, on the system to help drain excess water and prevent looding. The Polder Management Board’s main concern is to address the main mission and vision, ‘dry feet for all’. Primary concerns are on making the polder fully operational and therefore there is less concern on the waste management and sanitation issues. However, members of the board recognize that looding issues (waste, land subsidence, settlement etc.) are interconnected in Kemijen. Waste clogs the polder system, which prevents proper drainage and therefore increases looding. Eforts to inform the community on how waste impacts looding have not been successful, mainly due to the insuicient solid waste services provided to the community. The government has yet to provide full solid waste services to Kemijen which means that there is a lack of frequent collection and disposal of waste. However, waste management issues have been a consistent problem with Kemijen and others have found more pressing issues that add to the vulnerability of the system.

Looking at the vulnerability of the pumps to failure is critical since the pumps are the most critical component of the system. If pumps are inundated with loodwater, they cannot operate. In order to reduce the likelihood of failure, the Polder Management Board has equipped the Banger Polder with 4 pumps: 2 are automatic and 2 are manual pumps. If the 2 automatic pumps are

Community Perspectives and Recent Developments

The polder infrastructure has been generally well received by the community members interviewed. However, attitudes were not homogenous across all of Kemijen. Residents in the RWs closer to the Banger river had a better opinion and reaction overall to the polder. They agreed that the polder had begun to address their looding issues and expressed high hopes that the progress would continue. Residents in the outlying RWs, particularly RW III and RW IV, expressed less enthusiasm for the polder however no opinions were negative. The Polder Management Board has expressed that the polder needs to be proven efective in order to receive buy-in from the community. Only when the community is interested in the long-term viability and sustainability of the polder will the board and the government consider additional investments in the infrastructure. This is particularly important given the fact that the polder currently operates at a 10-year lood event capacity. The likelihood that a storm event larger than this will occur is relatively high over the coming years. If a large scale looding event occurs before more investment is made into the system, then this may erode conidence and support for the polder.

Community adaptation to the polder system have been ongoing (See Figure 17). Many RW and RTs have collected funds to maintain smaller community funded pumps that speciically address localized looding on the streets. Many residents interviewed stated that they pay around IDR 10,000 (USD 0.7) a month for the community pumps. Funds collected also pay for community toilets and other community needs. However, due to the implementation of the polder system, community pumps are not used as often. For the most vulnerable residents, household pumps are still in place and running frequently due to lood and tidal loods, and land subsidence.

Figure 17: Community Level Pumps at RW and RT Level

Community members have instituted their own system of pumps in their households and throughout the streets in order to aid in water drainage. These informal system of pumps has been a helpful adaptation to the polder system. Now, residents can pump water from their homes into the street, where at the end of streets community pumps are used to push water away from their neighborhood and towards either major roads or to the river. The localized pumped water then lows into the formal polder system, either into the drainage canals or the river, where the polder then pumps it to the coast. This community adaptation has allowed for the polder to become even more of an asset to the community. Where the efect of the polder may be weaker is in the outlying RWs, where community pumping and individual adaptation has illed the gap.

In November, 2016 the Prime Minister of the Netherlands completed a second tour of Semarang as the polder is in the inal stages of implementation and is now operational. Indonesia and the Netherlands continues to have a strong working international partnership and the Netherlands is committed to assisting Indonesia in addressing their looding issues as evident by the water management cooperation eforts (The Jakarta Post, 11/22/16). It is not yet clear what speciic interventions will emerge for Kemijen and Semarang coastal areas as part of this partnership.

Summary of Findings on Flood and Polder Management

During the household survey and transect walk, UH and UNDIP observed the lood adaptation strategies and cases of land subsidence. This is important to note because some of the adaptation strategies were in response to the issue of land subsidence, which is related to looding. The coastal areas of Semarang are experiencing the combined efects of land subsidence and sea level rise which will increase the tidal looding phenomena (Abidin et al., 2013). Flooding could potentially get worse in the future if subsidence continues at its ongoing alarming rate.

To alleviate some of the impacts of looding and land subsidence, the government is raising the roads all over Kemijen so the road is higher than the water level during loods. The problem with this is that not everyone can implement this adaptation strategy in their own home so their home becomes lower than the road causing water to runof into their homes. Those with capital can raise the level of their loors to be above the road level and looding is not an issue. This adaptation strategy of raising surfaces is really the only way to combat land subsidence.

Overall adaptations and policies need to be implemented in order to better manage the banjir issue that plagues Semarang (Cooksley et al, 2009). Land use planning and policy in Semarang coastal areas, to include the inishing of the polder system, improvements of drainage systems, and most importantly, vigilantly addressing the subsidence issue, are ways to minimize the impacts of looding. Next the project team turns to important factors related with waste, that results in blockages to the system and wastewater, which creates vectors for disease.

VII. Sanitation, Waste Management & Water Supply

Overview

Both solid and liquid waste are signiicant sources of environmental degradation and health hazards in Kemijen. There are three major forms of waste that should be considered as contributing to this issue: solid household waste, liquid household waste and industrial waste. All these waste sources are potential health hazards (Naik & Stenstrom, 2012) and contribute to environmental degradation in the area. Although solid waste management in Indonesia has improved steadily since the 1970s, the economic crisis of 1998 resulted in a decline of solid waste management services in the country (UNEP 2004). This low proiciency of solid waste management can be attributed to a combination of a lack of waste management regulations on a national level and insuicient enforcement on a local level (Meidiana & Gamse, 2010), as is also evident in the case of Kemijen. However, the issue of liquid and solid waste must be analyzed as stemming from an array of interactions between social, political, and economic factors. This section of the report details sanitation and waste challenges based on such an analysis of the three major waste categories of

Solid Waste Management in Kemijen

Transect walks and community FGD mapping exercises allowed us to identify six major waste disposal sites in Kemijen respectively in RW II, III, IV, V, VIII and IX. These six main areas are identiied in Figure 18. Only the waste from a dumpster in RW IX is regularly removed as part of an oicial waste management service. The waste disposal site in RW III is a waste bank where waste that has resale value is collected and sold, whereas invaluable waste is burned. The remaining waste collection sites are informal and in practice permanent as they are not serviced. In addition to the major waste sites there are waste dispersed in the Banger Canal, in adjoining side canals and drainage, and in some alleyways and in ishponds in the area. Residents on occasion burn waste in alleyways next to households.

At the household level, most people have individual wastebaskets that are picked up every one to two days by a community member. The service is provided for a monthly fee of IDR 7,000-10,000 (USD 0.50-0.70). Residential streets are generally free of waste showing willingness and capability of residents to remove waste from their homes and immediate surroundings. The waste that are collected from the households, are taken to one of the six main waste collection sites. Depending on which of the major disposal sites the waste are taken to it will either be removed from the area by oicial collection services (site in RW IX) or sold (waste bank in RW III), or remain at the site and possibly spread during looding (sites in RW II, IV, V, VIII).

Figure 18: Waste Locations in Kemijen

Most RTs also have one or two sites with community waste bins for organic and regular waste shown in Figure 19. During the community FGD, it was expressed that people do not use the communal bins because they believe the waste from these will end up in the canal. Reportedly these bins are emptied from once a day to two times a week as part of the same informal system as the household waste. The previous statement might thus refer to leakage from one of the major waste sites. Additional surveying is needed to fully understand how communal bins are utilized in the area.

Figure 19: Community Waste Bins

Outside of the six main waste collection sites there is also waste piled up in the Banger Canal and in the smaller drainage system (see Figure 20). This is a substantial problem in relation to looding as it clogs drainage and pumps, which reduces the capacity of the Banger Polder to function during looding as conirmed by Perdikan and the Polder Management Board as well as community leaders. Structural implications of waste in drainage and the Banger Canal are discussed in more detail in the Flood Management and Polder section of this report. Waste also decreases low in canals and contributes to less circulation of water and thus increased bacterial growth (WHO, 2006).

Origin and Extent of Waste

It has been estimated that residential areas on average are the source of about 75-80% of total waste generation in Semarang (Supriyadi, Kriwoke & Birley, 2000). Community members and leaders identiied several sources of waste and there was varying perceptions on this topic. Waste situated at the six major waste collection sites comes mainly from the surrounding households but at least one site also receives waste from a factory outside Kemijen. (see Figure 21.) In this case waste that has resale value is sold and the rest is left at the informal landill.

Three main sources were reported as contributing to waste in the canals and ishponds. Firstly, the waste comes from upstream communities. Community members and leaders repeatedly expressed

Figure 21: Informal Landill with Textile Waste

Some community members, organizational workers, and government oicials expressed that there is a bad waste culture among residents who still view waterways as a way to transport waste out of the area. Others expressed that rather there was a sense of discouragement amongst community members, knowing that regardless most of the waste would not be taken out of the area. As mentioned earlier we observed several examples of good waste culture in the community.

Lastly it is likely that the waste from the informal landills transfer to the canals and ishponds during heavy rain and looding as most of the sites are in close proximity to these water sources. Thus, identifying waste generation sources is useful in order to understand the contributors to waste generation it is important however to emphasize that regardless of the initial sources of waste, there are substantial deicits in the magnitude and frequency of oicial waste management services. There is a need for designated and regularly serviced temporary waste collection sites that are appropriately located in terms of minimal risk of leakage to surface waters. Ultimately this inadequacy results in large amounts of waste remaining in the area. Shortage of publicly available land is a spatial barrier which makes designating areas for waste management problematic. Nonetheless as is evident by the informal landills in the area, there are in fact open spaces in the kelurahan which are not being used efectively due to unresolved ownership matters. It is apparent that in the absence of designated land for waste management, that land is informally designated as waste collection sites in a way that leads to environmental degradation. Recognizing this contradiction is a step towards identifying possibilities resolving spatial obstacles to eicient waste management in the area. As such this acknowledgement opens up room for community, government and private landowners to cooperate on identifying possible solutions to this matter that can prevent environmental degradation for all.

Industrial Solid and Liquid Waste

There are several industries in the general vicinity, including an oil reinery. Most of these are small-scale industries, and some are connected to the Banger River Watershed. As mentioned earlier some of these industries also deliver waste to landills inside Kemijen. Most water contamination from large industries comes from upstream areas further south that are connected to the East Flood Canal. According to the Environmental Agency however large-scale industries are required to do environmental impact assessments and report an environmental management plan to the agency every 6 months. Smaller scale industries in the area are not equally subject to stringent environmental regulations. The extent of solid and liquid waste contamination from these industries is thus less certain. More research is needed to understand whether solid and liquid wastes at these facilities transfer to nearby areas during looding.

Sanitation Systems

As conirmed through the household survey and community FGDs, sanitation systems in Kemijen vary both between households and between RWs. While most homes in RW I, V and VI have septic tanks; this is a sparser occurrence in other RWs. Those who do not have septic tanks installed in their home usually have toilets that have direct discharge to a shallow pond next to the house as shown in Figure 22, or that discharges into the drainage pipes leading to the Banger canal. Members of the community also use the Banger canal directly as a toilet. Through community interviews it was made known that there is a ‘bathroom line’ by the canal every morning at 4am.

In addition to individual sanitation systems four communal toilets have been constructed which are situated in RW V, VII, VIII and IX. However, community feedback indicates that these toilets are not being utilized to their potential. Some community toilets were reported to not be in use at all. More research is needed to understand the underutilization of these toilets. Due to irregular and insuicient wastewater sanitation systems there is a concern that leakage of sewage into surface waters is a major contributor to health issues in the area.

Sanitation and Health Issues

Accumulated solid waste in urban areas is a domain for insects, parasites and rummaging animals. These life forms increase the prevalence of air- and waterborne illnesses. Liquids that leak from waste sites transfer contaminants to surrounding areas and surface waters (Le Courtis, 2012). Further, reduced low in

the canals indicate a presence of standing water, as was observed during transect walks. Standing or slow lowing water attracts mosquitoes that use the water as breeding grounds (WHO, 2016). Perdikan and the Ministry of Health conirm that waste has implications for the health situation in the area. Larva that was observable in slow lowing waters in the area, and dengue fever is a major issue in the area according to local health workers and community members. A community program, led by government

Other than vector borne diseases, water that is contaminated by wastewater can lead to diarrheal diseases and skin infections. Due to contamination, looding increases risk of viral diseases through direct contact with loodwater and contamination of drinking wells (Phanuwan et al. 2006). Since a large amount of households receive piped water for bathing and cooking, and drinking water from bottle services, contamination of drinking wells is less of an issue in the area. There are however households who use water from shallow wells for cooking and washing which still indicate a risk of direct contact with pathogens. Moreover, contaminated water creates issues even in the absence of looding. Standing and slow running water is located close to households throughout Kemijen and children were repeatedly seen playing and bathing in water where solid waste, sewage, apparent bacterial growth and living larva were evident.

The lood related health issue most frequently reported by the community was skin infections and dengue fever as well as diarrheal disease amongst kids. Perdikan also reports respiratory diseases due to mold while the Health Agency reports more serious incidents such as miscarriages and birth defects. Increased health issues due to looding are also evident from the absence of children in schools during lood season. It is clear that looding and sanitary issues have mutually reinforcing efects. Solid waste and sludge reduces capacity of pumps and drainage and looding spreads contaminated water and increases residents’ contact with diseases.

Water Supply

Clean and safe water supply is a necessity for human life. The provision of water services in urban areas is the responsibility of Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (PDAM) Local Government Owned Water Utilities in Indonesia. Although there is a relatively good supply of piped water in Kemijen (see Figure 23), it varies between RWs. For example, most of RW I and II have access to piped water, whereas in RW III, IV and V few of respondents reported having access to piped water. Some respondents reported of getting water from shallow wells for IDR 3,000 (USD 0.20) per cubic meter of water. There were varying perceptions of quality, however mostly both the well water and the piped water were only used for cooking and cleaning. Some reported that they would use these sources of water for drinking purposes when it “doesn’t smell bad” usually by boiling the water irst. The quality of water is not recommended for drinking purposes due to chemical treatment of the water. Some respondents said that they buy bottled water regularly.

Figure 23: Piped Water in Kemijen

PENDAHULUAN

• Nama; umur; gender; jumlah anggota keluarga di rumah

• Sudah berapa lama tinggal disini?

• Apa pekerjaan Anda dan dimana?

• Dimana Anda memperoleh air bersih/minum?

• agaiman kondisi pengelolaan sampah disini?

BANJIR

• Sejak kapan mulai banjir disini?

• Apa penyebab banjir disini?

• Dimana banjir sering terjadi? Berapa luasan genangan? Berapa lama dan berapa tinggi banjirnya?

• pa yang biasanya terjadi saat banjir? Mohon jelaskan. Apakah ada kondisi dimana Anda perlu mengungsi? Seperti apa saja kondisi tersebut?

• Apa dampak banjir terhadap keluarga Anda?

• Apa kerugian terbesar yang dialami saat/sesudah terjadi kondisi banjir?

• Ada petugas kesehatan yang mengunjungi daerah ini saat kondisi genangan?

• Bagaimana cara memperoleh informasi bahwa banjir akan terjadi? Bagaimana cara siap siaga atas kemungkinan terjadinya banjir?

• Apa upaya pemerintah atau prakarasa masyarakat untuk mengurangi banjir?

• Apakah prakarsa ini sudah siap menangani kondisi banjir kedepan?

• Apakah ada iuran untuk prasarana disini (meninggikan jalan, pompa, dll)?

• Apa respon masyarakat saat banjir; apa tanggapan ormas atau pemerintah?

• Apakah ada jalur evakuasi yang pernah disiapkan sebelumnya?

• Sosialisasi apa saja yang telah dilakukan tentang banjir? Siapa yang mengundang pertemuan tersebut? Seberapa sering masyarakat dilibatkan?

• Apa yang terjadi setelah banjir surut (terkait kehilangan waktu dan barang)?

• Apakah pernah ada korban jiwa terkait banjir?

• Bagaimana Anda menjelaskan kerugian dan biaya dari banjir?

• Ada prediksi yang mengatakan bahwa kondisi banjir dan penurunan tanah akan menjadi lebih buruk. Bagaimana Anda akan menyesuaikan diri terhadap kondisi ini?

• Apakah Anda merasa nyaman menetap disini? Apakah Anda pernah mempertimbangkan untuk pindah dari sini? Apakah Anda ingin pindah dari sini? Apa yang Anda perlukan atau pertimbangkan untuk bisa pindah ke tempat lain.

PERTANYAAN TAMBAHAN

Appendix C. Relocation Case Studies in Java

The Indonesian NGO, Yayasan Kota Kita, or Our City Foundation, has studied relocation procedures in the cities of Solo and Surabaya. The methodology was similar to the work conducted in Kemijen, as community residents, government oicials, NGO staf, and civil society leaders were all consulted through interviews or focus group discussions (Taylor, 2015). Each city had diferent results from the planning process for relocation of communities due to looding issues.

In Solo, seasonal rains in November 2007 caused extensive looding and subsequent damage to thousands of households in riverbank settlementS that prompted the local government to initiate intervention measures (Taylor, 2015). As repairing communities was costly, the appropriate solution to the loods was to relocate communities to safer, less vulnerable areas. Similar to the responses to the household survey conducted in Kemijen, residents of the riverbank settlements were reluctant to the idea; many people considered the area to be a strategic location and cited lack of economic means to move as major reasons for such hesitancy. Furthermore, historical methods of relocation in places like Jakarta were known to be less than ideal, with little notice or warning to eviction.

However, in Solo, the Mayor was committed to departing from such relocation methods and the planning process that resulted was inclusive and participatory (Taylor, 2015). The resulting comprehensive policy had standardized compensation measures for community resident with legal land tenure, and 1,000 households were successfully relocated to a new area that also had basic services provided by the government. Those who did not have legal land tenure were less responsive to relocation, as such households only qualiied for disaster aid and were not provided with compensation to move.

The other case study of relocation policy conducted by Yayasan Kota Kita was in the second-largest city in Indonesia, the city of Surabaya. The riverbank settlement in Surabaya was quite diferent in terms of governance than the city of Solo, as the settlement was in an area that was under the jurisdiction of the provincial water department but was managed by the city government (Taylor, 2015). Unlike Solo, where the Mayor was the clear leading actor, there were complications in decision-making and consensus due to the diference in jurisdiction and management of the area.

In mid-2002, the Mayor of Surabaya sent an eviction notice to riverbank communities, citing pollution and looding as the reasons for the notice (Taylor, 2015). In response, those in the communities risking eviction who did not possess legal tenure self-organized as a civil society organization to research eviction alternatives. The research gained enough traction that the eviction was not carried out; however, seven years later a new call for eviction was sent out in 2009 (Taylor, 2015). As of the analysis by the Yayasan Kota Kita in 2015, there was still no consensus between the community and the participating government agencies about how to proceed with relocation.

Appendix D. Integrated Approach Best Practices

World Bank (2012) provides a guideline as ‘Integrated Flood Risk Management’ to take steps as measures against looding. In the steps the management plan includes both structural and non-structural measures. Structural measures range from heavily-engineered interventions, such as loodways and reservoirs while non-structural measures are also very important. Structural measures bring success only if non-structural measures follow with it as integrated approach. Kemijen is following mainly diferent structural measures in terms of lood management, but there are some non-structural measures which could be explored. The following table identiies some of the best practices of structural and non-structural measures.

Structural measures range from

heavily-engineered interventions

• Conveyance systems to remove lood risk from the afected areas (creating channels, conveyance and storage, modiication of rivers, relief channels, loodplain restoration, etc.)

• Flood storage (on-line and of-line storage)

• Maintenance of the drainage systems

• Sewers and drains, major versus minor systems, interface with river systems, semi-natural systems, surface water management plans,

• Groundwater management (groundwater looding, land subsidence, rainwater harvesting)

• Flood defenses (inland lood defenses, demountable and temporary lood defenses, property level defenses, critical infrastructure)

• Barrier and embankment systems for estuary and coastal lood protection (coastal management, coastal structures, lood barriers) etc Non-structural

measures

• Flood awareness campaigns

• Health planning and awareness campaigns

• Land use planning and lood zoning

• Flood insurance, risk inancing, compensation and tax relief

• Solid and liquid waste management

• Emergency planning, rescue, damage avoidance actions and temporary shelter

• Business and government continuity planning

• Early warning systems

Appendix E. Flood Management Best Practices

100 Resilient Cities initiative found best practices of cities to deal with disasters and make cities resilient. The initiative creates a platform where diferent cities can come and share their challenges and success stories in managing shocks and make their city more resilient. Cities can learn ideas from other cities to implement in their scenario. Following are some examples of diferent cities managing loods from 100RC cities.

Name of the City and

Description

Context

Project(s) Summary

Georgetown:

Georgetown is the capital of Guyana. It is the country’s largest urban center and containing a large portion of its commerce. The coastal city is situated on the Atlantic Ocean coast at the mouth of the Demerara river estuary.

Rapid unplanned urbanization in

Georgetown has resulted in what was once a well-connected network of canals and drains being built over. Floods now frequently inundate Guyana’s capital.

• By analyzing water low in Georgetown’s 200-year-old drainage network, the city identiied the main reason of looding as the destruction of main water discharge canals. To improve the situation, the city identiied maintenance of water discharge channels as key, as a result the city decided to recommend small loating dredging equipment which would keep the canals free of obstructions.

• In addition the city is being advised by the Arcadis (global design, engineering and management consulting company) team members to import a manatee (fully aquatic, mainly herbivorous mammal) into the canals, to eat the vegetation that is clogging them and enable a freer low of water. (Ravishankar, 2016)

Lent:

Lent is situated in the Dutch province. It is located in the municipality of Nijmegen, about 2 km north of that city, on the north bank of the Waal river.

The river Waal takes a sharp bend near Nijmegen and becomes narrower, forming a bottleneck. At times of high water, the river could not cope with the volume of water and causes high lood to Lent.

• To handle such looding events the Dutch Government launched a unique project called “Room for the River”. The idea was to make more room for the river to overlow, rather than building right on its banks. A 300 meters inland and a 4 kilometer long secondary channel have been dug which has resulted in the formation of a small island and new waterfront at Lent. The waterfront is a public open space with a paved sloping surface into the water. Three new bridges connect the island to Nijmegen-Noord.

• This project resulted in a 34 centimeter drop of water level in the river. (Ravishankar, 2016)

Name of the City and

Description

Context

Project(s) Summary

Jakarta:

The city is the capital and most populous city in Indonesia. It is a low lat basin area and one of the most lood prone cities in the world. There are thirteen rivers cut through Jakarta, all of which lead to the Java Sea.

Jakarta is prone to monsoon loods and sea level rise, making it vulnerable to looding. Contributing to the problem is poor maintenance and the garbage and trash that closes the drainage system.

• After the 2007 loods, the Indonesian government in collaboration with the Dutch water research institute Deltares decided to open up a new channel that would take loodwater out into the sea rather than letting it lood the city.

• Jakarta Urgent Flood Management Project (JUFMP) with the World Bank in 2013 started to protect the retention basins and loodways in and around the city. Dredging of canals and rivers, and strengthening embankments is already showing signiicant result in reducing lood impacts. (Ravishankar, 2016)

New Orleans:

It is a major port in the United States and also the largest city and metropolitan area in the state of Louisiana. The city is located in the Mississippi River Delta on the east and west banks of the Mississippi River and south of Lake Pontchartrain.

In 2005 Hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans, resulting in 1,500 fatalities.

• Since Hurricane Katrina the city has been working on a water management plan. in 2010 the Greater Orleans Urban Water Plan was inally implemented as an attempt to create what its’ architects called a “Living Water System”. The canals were widened and their surroundings turned into green public spaces. New Orleans has since put in place pervious pavements, which allows rainwater to pass through them into underground storage basins.

• To prevent land subsidence they advise people against groundwater extraction and emphasize ground water recharge through rain water harvesting. (Ravishankar, 2016; Herbert & Landrieu, 2015)

Surat:

Is a city in the western Indian state of Gujarat. The city is situated along the Tapi River on the west coast of India.

The city faces looding due to both upstream and monsoon looding.

• The city has put in place early lood warning systems to ensure that loss of life is minimized among its teeming population.

• The city also managed to restore a clogged and polluted lake, and has turned the surrounding area into a public space replete with entertainment and games for children and adults.

Name of the City and

Description

Context

Project(s) Summary

Tulsa:

The city is situated along the Arkansas River at the foothills of the Ozark Mountains in northeast Oklahoma. It is the second largest city in the state of Oklahoma

The combination of climatic and topographic elements in the Tulsa area have resulted in major lash looding,

• The city utilizes structural engineering measures such as constructing dams to protect from loods. As a result of the city has incorporated many innovative and regulatory changes. in the early 1990s, FEMA ranked Tulsa irst in the nation for its loodplain management program. FEMA increased Tulsa’s community rating from Class 5 to Class 3 As of 2000, Tulsa was the only U.S. community rated as Class 3. Speciic activities that FEMA cited were:”...acquisition of nearly a thousand lood-prone properties and the preservation of more than a quarter of its loodplain as open space; strong building codes, including the requirement of a two-foot safety factor (freeboard) in loodplain construction; and community outreach to advise residents of lood hazards and ofer mitigation solutions and technical assistance.

• Tulsa designed a system that is visually appealing, environmentally sustainable, and perhaps most importantly, provides multiple beneits to prevent looding.

Sponge Cities in China: In 2015, a pilot project was launched to build sponge cities in China to include 15 cities , with and additional 14 cities by the year 2016.

Cities such as Beijing, Chengdu, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai and Wuhan all have large scale projects underway.

Many cities in China experience severe looding. The system has not keep pace with the expanding development above the surface. in 2013 alone, 230 of these cities were hit by severe looding, according to the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MoHURD).

• A sponge city is one that can hold, clean, and drain water in a natural way using an ecological approach.

• The pilot project also suggested that these projects will work only if implemented for the whole city. Implementing this concept only one small area or neighborhood is not enough. (Shepard, 2016)